Allahabad High Court
Prem Chandra Gautam vs Union Of India And 4 Others on 19 December, 2022
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 32 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 65991 of 2015 Petitioner :- Prem Chandra Gautam Respondent :- Union Of India And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Lal Mani Singh,Ajay Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.,Gyan Prakash,Manoj Kumar Singh,Rizwan Ahmad,Saurabh Srivastava Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.
Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Rizwan Ahmad, learned counsel for respondents.
It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 11.2.2015 and subsequent order dated 28.9.2015 passed on mercy representation, by which order of dismissal from service imposed by the Disciplinary Authority has been converted into compulsory retirement from service with 2/3 terminal pensionary benefits.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was working on the post of Constable in Central Reserve Police Force and while the petitioner was on Santri duty, he was found to be intoxicated and was sleeping. On another occasion, petitioner was found to be sleeping after taking intoxicating material. It is submitted that petitioner was subjected to medical examination where petitioner was found to be intoxicated and, thereafter, charge sheet was issued against petitioner. Petitioner did not file any reply to the charge sheet, however, his statement was recorded during enquiry proceedings where he confessed the fact that he was under intoxication while on duty and he has also confessed that he was subjected to medical examination where he was found that he was under intoxication.
It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that Disciplinary Authority dismissed the petitioner from service, however on revision being preferred, the order of dismissal from service was converted into compulsory retirement from service with 2/3 terminal pensionary benefits. The submission of learned counsel for petitioner is to the effect that the Doctor, who has conducted medical examination has not been examined during enquiry proceedings and as such, enquiry proceedings stood vitiated. It is on the aforesaid basis, petitioner submits that even the order of compulsory retirement is not tenable under law.
Learned counsel for respondents submits that the order of dismissal from service was passed on the basis of confessional statement of petitioner in departmental proceedings where petitioner had admitted that he was under intoxication while on duty.
Learned counsel for respondents further submits that the petitioner in his statement before the Enquiry Officer has admitted the fact that he was found to be intoxicated in the medical examination. It is submitted that on the basis of confessional statement of petitioner, order of dismissal from service has been passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 10.10.2014. Against the aforesaid order, petitioner had preferred appeal, which was rejected by order dated 25.11.2014. Thereafter, petitioner has filed a revision before respondent No.4, which was partly allowed by order dated 11.2.2015 by converting the order of dismissal from service to compulsory retirement from service with 2/3 terminal pensionary benefits. It is submitted that Revisional Authority has taken a lenient view in the matter and although the petitioner's behavior was unbecoming of a member of discipline force. However, the Highest Authority has taken a decision of granting compulsory retirement to petitioner. The order is sustainable under law.
It is to be seen that petitioner was working on the post of Constable in Central Reserve Police Force. The Force is discipline force and is required to maintain strict discipline. While on duty, petitioner was found to be intoxicated on two occasions, as a result of same, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against petitioner where petitioner has himself confessed with regard to consuming of intoxicating material while on duty. Petitioner has further admitted the fact that he was found to be sleeping on duty after intoxication. The confessional statement of petitioner is at page 52 of the writ petition where petitioner has also admitted that he was subjected to medical examination where he was found to be intoxicated.
It is to be seen that once the facts are admitted by petitioner himself in the disciplinary proceedings before the Enquiry Officer then the facts are not required to be proved. The strict provision of Evidence Act are not applicable in the disciplinary proceedings. Once petitioner has admitted his guilt then the Disciplinary Authority was required to pass an order in accordance with law. The Disciplinary Authority initially passed an order for dismissal from service. However, the Revisional Authority, by order dated 11.2.2015 has taken a lenient view and converted the order for dismissal from service to compulsory retirement. In view of the fact, this Court finds that the view taken was very lenient.
Under the circumstances, this Court do not find any ground to interfere with impugned orders dated 11.2.2015 and 28.9.2015. As such, writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submits that after the order dated 11.2.2015 petitioner has not taken retiral benefits which the petitioner was entitled as per order dated 11.2.2015. He submits that now the petitioner has no grouse against the order dated 11.2.2015 and as such, retiral benefits of petitioner in pursuance to order dated 11.2.2015 may be released.
Learned counsel for respondents submits that since the petitioner has accepted the order dated 11.2.2015 as such, retiral benefits of petitioner will be released forthwith in a time bound manner.
It is provided that retiral benefits of petitioner in pursuance to order dated 11.2.2015 be released within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
It is made clear that in case retiral benefits are not paid within two months then petitioner shall be entitled for payment of interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date when the retiral dues were required to be paid till the date of actual payment.
Order Date :- 19.12.2022 D. Tamang